FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91. But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91. But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...

We couldn't have done that in '91. Most of the support from many of the countries, especially Saudi Arabia, from where we attacked, was predicated on us NOT toppling Saddam. No Saudi help, and you're talking a very, very narrow invasion front.

vygramul:PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing? Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.

We actually don't. To create such a court, everyone would have to give up some amount of sovereignty. You wouldn't get that past Teahaddists here, much less in Iran, China, and Russia.

I think I already said earlier in this thread I would like to see a UN with a military force strong enough to basically go in and overthrow an entire country. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided. A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning. She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.

ciberido:vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: vygramul: PsiChick: TrollingForColumbine: PsiChick: UN inspectors. They have a job. Let them farking do it

UN inspectors only determine if CW was used. Not who used them.

The UN Security Council only determines if action should be taken, too...

And they decided not to do anything in Rwanda. How noble of them.

Or is it just possible that morality and the UN are not the same thing?

Obviously. But you know what the answer is when the rule of law and morality aren't the same thing? Fix the laws. Not 'run off on your own playing Batman'. That goes for people and countries.

If there was a central government of the planet with authority, that would be the process. But that's not what Earth has. The articles of confederation had more bite. You cannot fix the laws when there is no one to enforce them on everyone in an unbiased and just manner.

So why not create a real international court of law, then? It's not like we don't have the political clout or money to do it.

We actually don't. To create such a court, everyone would have to give up some amount of sovereignty. You wouldn't get that past Teahaddists here, much less in Iran, China, and Russia.

There are people (both inside and outside the USA) who would like to see it happen. But that's very close to postnationalism, at which American exceptionalism is bitterly at odds.

I think I already said earlier in this thread I would like to see a UN with a military force strong enough to basically go in and overthrow an entire country. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. ...

ciberido:There are people (both inside and outside the USA) who would like to see it happen. But that's very close to postnationalism, at which American exceptionalism is bitterly at odds.

I think I already said earlier in this thread I would like to see a UN with a military force strong enough to basically go in and overthrow an entire country. But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided. A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning. She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.

That is a not-stupid analogy. Perhaps not perfectly describing the situation, but clear, concise, and fairly close. Thanks!

vygramul:cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Youvygramul: Iran is not Russia's satellite. Iran hates Russia almost as much as they hate us, and just as much as they hate the UK.

The threats of Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran are more hollow than that disappointing chocolate bunny people give their kids every Easter.

Actually you're right. I did overstate by calling Iran a Russian satellite, although the Soviet Union has supported Iran in the past. Russian relations with Iran are actually pretty good at the moment: Why Russia stays loyal to Iran despite tensions

Regardless, Iran has a strategic alliance with Syria and will almost assuredly be drawn into any conflict with Syria.

Want to put money on it? You're so certain, you should be willing to give me odds.

I'm not a bookie and it's poor taste to bet on other people's lives. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas takes your action.

But from what I've read and heard there is a 50/50 chance of the US being stupid and getting further involved.

durbnpoisn:No. I really don't. Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell. And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

I don't think the issue is as much about whether or not the result of the weapons is death, and no one is saying that machine guns don't hurt horrifically when used to blow people to pieces, but rather that chemical weapons would become out of control if they were ever legalized because a remorseless leader could order their mass production and annihilate most organisms in a city within hours. Were there any innocent civilians in there? Ah too bad, Remorseless Leader doesn't give a shiat because his enemies are dead too and hey, less whiny mouths to feed once this fighting is done.

ciberido:The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided. A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning. She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.

bdub77:you have pee hands: bdub77: I don't think the US will do much if anything to Syria. Obama is going through the proper channel in Congress, who has been unable to pass even the easiest of bills. So they will not give him authority to attack Syria. If he does skirt Congress after the vote, he'll have problems getting any upcoming fiscal issues resolved with Congressmen and at the same time will probably be impeached by the the knuckle draggers in the House, because that legislative body is run by retarded, sh*t-flinging monkeys.

I'm a big 'ole FarkLib (TM) but if Obama circumvents Congress to start a unilateral war against someone who - while likely a genocidal shiathead - poses no threat to the US he should be impeached for it. Obama's backed himself into a corner where there's no real way to save face unless Assad does something so heinous he pisses off the rest of the international community into stomping him but them's the breaks.

I don't think Obama wants to start a war. I think the problem is that if he does nothing, the US policy of deterring countries from using chemical weapons will suffer a major setback, and then a green light is basically given to anyone who wants to use them, including Assad who most definitely wants to use them.

For better or worse the US is the world's police right now.

Having said that, gassing people, including women and children, with chemical weapons is a f*cking atrocity. Why is assassination not allowed again if it would save hundreds of thousands of lives?

Easy! Think of who assassinations target, now think of who makes the rules.

griffer:ciberido: The current world situation is like a village in which there's a fat guy living in the hut by the river who gets drunk and beats his wife every night. Nobody likes it but there isn't any sort of police force and the village elder is a doddering old man going senile. Short of all the villagers getting together to form a kind of lynch mob, nobody's ever going to do anything to stop Drunk Wifebeater. Himdal the Blacksmith is big and strong enough to do it single-handedly, but now he's got a reputation for throwing his weight around too much and many of the villagers see him as a bully in his own right.

And now, to make things more complicated, it's not clear that the domestic violence is totally one-sided. A villager noticed Drunk Wifebeater vomiting blood this morning. She thinks his wife might have poisoned him.

OOOH! I LOVE REDUCTIVE STORY HOUR! TELL ME ANOTHER ONE! PLEASE?

If it helps any I'll admit I could be totally wrong. Would someone like to offer a different analogy?

durbnpoisn:Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell. And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

The issue is not about lethality. It is about the indiscriminate and uncontrolled nature of the weapon. Gas is a poor weapon against the military as WWI showed. It is unfocused, and a change in the wind can render it ineffective or even damage your own troops.

The problem is that nerve gas is a weapon guaranteed to kill civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers with no ability to even try to prevent civilian death. Particularly when deployed in an urban center. It has no AIM. It is a wide area weapon that cannot be focused or targeted. It stays on clothing and can kill up to 30 minutes later. It can take up to 18 hours to die from it.

And then add to that the genuinely horrific, agonizing, torturously painful way is causes those deaths and you have a class of weapons that are qualitatively different from bullets and bombs.

Without reference to whether there is justification for action in Syria, I think that anyone who looks at it objectively can agree that while all death is bad, dying from a bomb blast or a bullet is not the same thing as slowly asphyxiating as your body spasms uncontrollably.

And that is why all weapons of war are bad, but everyone agrees that some are unacceptably worse.

BojanglesPaladin:durbnpoisn: Chemical weapons, while brutal, don't cause nearly as much damage as say, legions of machine gun toting military personell. And no one seems to have gotten very upset about the first 100,000 or so that got killed by them.

The issue is not about lethality. It is about the indiscriminate and uncontrolled nature of the weapon. Gas is a poor weapon against the military as WWI showed. It is unfocused, and a change in the wind can render it ineffective or even damage your own troops.

The problem is that nerve gas is a weapon guaranteed to kill civilians indiscriminately and in large numbers with no ability to even try to prevent civilian death. Particularly when deployed in an urban center. It has no AIM. It is a wide area weapon that cannot be focused or targeted. It stays on clothing and can kill up to 30 minutes later. It can take up to 18 hours to die from it.

And then add to that the genuinely horrific, agonizing, torturously painful way is causes those deaths and you have a class of weapons that are qualitatively different from bullets and bombs.

Without reference to whether there is justification for action in Syria, I think that anyone who looks at it objectively can agree that while all death is bad, dying from a bomb blast or a bullet is not the same thing as slowly asphyxiating as your body spasms uncontrollably.

And that is why all weapons of war are bad, but everyone agrees that some are unacceptably worse.

people think of NBC weapons in the wrong way. Their primary job isnt to 'kill troops', although they do a good job of it. They really are 'area denial weapons'. Its a great thing to use when there is a piece of real estate that has enemies on it that you cant control yourself but is damaging for your forces if controlled by an enemy. So you drop some sarin on it and make sure NOBODY has it. Its the ultimate troll weapon. covering in area in nerve gas is basically saying 'well screw you guys im going home'.

Good example? You have limited personnel and numerous enemies. Your forces can eitherA- attempt to control a large swathe of frontline and risk being spread thin and giving the enemy multiple points for exploitation.orB- VX the ever living shiat out of a particular zone and concentrate your forces in the only area the enemy can attack you or get support from.

Do we even still maintain a chemical capability or has the US gone all chips in on nuclear devices?

Subtle_Canary:So you drop some sarin on it and make sure NOBODY has it. Its the ultimate troll weapon. covering in area in nerve gas is basically saying 'well screw you guys im going home'.

Umm. Yeah. What you describe is generally considered a war crime, even if done with conventional weaponry. Also, the nerve gases are only viable and lethal for a day or so when released into the atmosphere. Less depending on conditions.

And when that area is populated by living people, you are killing thousands of people in a particularly nasty and gruesome way for little military advantage. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because if the torturous and agonizing way in which it kills. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because it is so indiscriminate, and so likely to result in the death of nearby civilians.

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91. But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...

We couldn't have done that in '91. Most of the support from many of the countries, especially Saudi Arabia, from where we attacked, was predicated on us NOT toppling Saddam. No Saudi help, and you're talking a very, very narrow invasion front.

You are right, but I meant Should Have, in a Captain Hindsight 20/20 vision kind of way...

FWIW, this guy said the same thing before Stormin' Norman bent his mechanized divisions over a barrel in the Kuwaiti desert.

Yeah, and we can all see how WELL that worked out for us and the region in the long run. I imagine with Russia thrown in to defend their last non-native naval port, that things will go SO much better in Syria.

Well, Desert Storm I worked pretty well. We got in, did the mission, and got out. Iraqi Freedom seems to have been the problem.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was what we should have done in 91. But we threw away a lot of goodwill with the Iraqi people and replaced it with bitterness and hatred when we allowed Saddam to massacre his own people while F-14's flew overhead...

We couldn't have done that in '91. Most of the support from many of the countries, especially Saudi Arabia, from where we attacked, was predicated on us NOT toppling Saddam. No Saudi help, and you're talking a very, very narrow invasion front.

You are right, but I meant Should Have, in a Captain Hindsight 20/20 vision kind of way...

[static.comicvine.com image 400x225]

So, really, Captain Hindsight should point out that it's the Saudis and other Arab states who should have changed. Had they wanted Saddam removed, we probably would have done it.

BojanglesPaladin:Subtle_Canary: So you drop some sarin on it and make sure NOBODY has it. Its the ultimate troll weapon. covering in area in nerve gas is basically saying 'well screw you guys im going home'.

Umm. Yeah. What you describe is generally considered a war crime, even if done with conventional weaponry. Also, the nerve gases are only viable and lethal for a day or so when released into the atmosphere. Less depending on conditions.

And when that area is populated by living people, you are killing thousands of people in a particularly nasty and gruesome way for little military advantage. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because if the torturous and agonizing way in which it kills. Part of the reason we ban chemical weapons is because it is so indiscriminate, and so likely to result in the death of nearby civilians.

psht, warcrime. How many US politicians went to jail for Operation Ranch Hand? Yeah i thought so.

Nobody really gives a shiat if you use WMD's. You just need to make sure you got enough clout in the UN. Hell, Saddam used it on the Kurds pretty blatantly and we did jack and squat about it.

Subtle_Canary:psht, warcrime. How many US politicians went to jail for Operation Ranch Hand? Yeah i thought so.

Nobody really gives a shiat if you use WMD's.

Ah. I think we are having different conversations here. I was answering the question of why chemical weapons are worse then conventional arms and almost universally reviled, even in warfare.

You seem to be arguing some vague point that because not all standards are universally adhered to, then no standards mean anything. Or something about because the US is not without sin, no one can cast any judgment on any country for anything they do. Or something. I don't know.

Anywho. We aren't actually having a discussion, you are just posting commentary with my post as a trigger.

Oh no, im not arguing whether they are heinous or not. Im arguing that they are good at what they do. That was the entire basis of my initial statement. People act as if WMD's are these shiatty weapons from a military standpoint when they arent accurate and might hurt your own troops. Thats the point of them. They are area denial weapons, just like dumping variable fuse cluster munitions over an entire country side.

Sentient:Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless. If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Brainsick:Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless. If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.

I now have you farkied as "human"

+1

Holy shiat, I think Sentient just found the sole way we could get involved without this turning into an absolute and utter farkup for everyone.

Shadowe:Brainsick: Sentient: Turn the "evidence" over to the UN and let China & Russia pretend it doesn't exist. That's it. Let history judge them, not us.

Meanwhile, use all that fancy stealth tech to start flying medical supplies & food into civilian areas. Like, carpet-bomb Syria with bandages, alcohol, and MREs. Completely disregard the regional fits about sovereignty and borders, just pretend that Syria's borders are completely meaningless. If you really, really must blow something up, just knock down any aircraft or AA sites that threaten the food drops. And to cap it off, throw a few million at construction & services to the Syrian refugee camps, just to put a boot further up Assad's ass.

Completely disregarding Syria's borders will do far more to make Assad look powerless than any violence (which he survives) ever would. It's a clear answer to the "red line" problem Obama caused. Such an approach would pass through congress, and any biatching the UN or Arab States wants to do about 'unilateral action' will fall on deaf ears.

I'm tired of being the nation who responds to atrocities with destruction. If Syria wants to behave like a child, act like a parent.

Rant off.

I now have you farkied as "human"

+1

Holy shiat, I think Sentient just found the sole way we could get involved without this turning into an absolute and utter farkup for everyone.

IF, big IF, the US of A would drop, water, batteries, fans, toilet paper, food, radios, (get it?) instead o bombs and burny hurty chit, where would we be?